1. 802.19.1 Reference Model Proposal
May 2010
doc.: IEEE yy/xxxxr0
July 2010
Reference Model Proposal
Date:
Authors:
Notice: This document has been prepared to assist IEEE It is offered as a basis for discussion and is not binding on the contributing individual(s) or organization(s). The material in this document is subject to change in form and content after further study. The contributor(s) reserve(s) the right to add, amend or withdraw material contained herein.
Alex Reznik, et. al. (InterDigital)
Tuncer Baykas, NICT

2. July 2010
Abstract
We present a simple reference model for that easily captures the richness of the agreed-on architecture
Additionally, we use our model to demonstrate synergies between and
Alex Reznik, et. al. (InterDigital)

3. Overview: Architecture We Agreed On
July 2010
Overview: Architecture We Agreed On
Alex Reznik, et. al. (InterDigital)

4. SAP Needs in This Architecture
July 2010
SAP Needs in This Architecture
Identify 2 Major SAP Needs
Transport for information between physically distant components
Communication between CE and MAC/PHY in the device
Inter-device SAP
Needs to support interfaces B1, B2, B3, C, D
Transport means needs to be defined when this is needed
SAP to MAC/PHY
Supports interface A
Needs to be address specifics of each MAC/PHY
Alex Reznik, et. al. (InterDigital)

5. Reference Model: Centralized Configuration
July 2010
Reference Model: Centralized Configuration
Notes:
Centralized configuration: CM’s interface to each other through CDIS
TVCOEX_MNET_SAP Supports Interfaces B1, B2, C, D
TVCOEX_LINK_SAP Supports Interface A
This SAP needs to capture dependency on specific MACs
Alex Reznik, et. al. (InterDigital)

6. Reference Model: Distributed Configuration
July 2010
Reference Model: Distributed Configuration
Notes:
Distributed: CMs interface to each other directly (no CDIS)
TVCOEX_MNET_SAP supports Interface B1, B3, C, D
Easily coexists with centralized config for a hybrid approach
It just gets a bit messy to show
Alex Reznik, et. al. (InterDigital)

7. TVCOEX_MNET_SAP: L2 / L3 Transport
July 2010
TVCOEX_MNET_SAP: L2 / L3 Transport
Information from TVCOEX_MNET_SAP would need to be transported by a L2 or L3 protocol
L2 transport
Can be used for intra-domain communications
Potentially requires changes in the different MACs (i.e. definition of new management frames)
L3 transport
Can be used for inter and intra-domain communications
Becomes a data frame for L2 (i.e. no MAC changes are needed)
Conclusion
L3 transport is preferred when SAP is over an interface between different physical devices
For example, do not need to use this for B1 when CM and CE are on the same device
In fact in this case do not need to specify transport at all (up to device implementation)
Alex Reznik, et. al. (InterDigital)

8. TVCOEX_LINK_SAP: Addressing Media Dependence
July 2010
TVCOEX_LINK_SAP: Addressing Media Dependence
Media Dependence on MAC/PHY can present a major challenge
May require us to develop a separate design for each MAC/PHY
Requires liasing and time commitment
Can easily date the standard
Desired approach
Just like we could rely on an already defined transport means for TVCOEX_MNET_SAP, we would like to find a ready-made solution to this problem
presents such a solution
Re-use the media-interaction components of
Drop any unnecessary services associated with Handover
Alex Reznik, et. al. (InterDigital)

9. A possible solution July 2010 Higher Layers (TCP/IP) Link Layers
TVCOEX
Function
Higher Layers
(TCP/IP)
TVCOEX_MNET_SAP
e.g. RFC5677
MIH (802.21)
TVCOEX_LINK_SAP
Link Layers
(802.11, , )
MIH_LINK_SAP
Alex Reznik, et. al. (InterDigital)

10. July 2010
Conclusions
We presented a simple reference model that can easily address the multiple configuration supported by our architecture
We discussed proposed a solutions to the difficult problems by utilizing developed and proven solutions
We suggest adopt the approach proposed here
Alex Reznik, et. al. (InterDigital)